RE: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please note the following next steps for this discussion group.

1. An initial version of draft Terms of Reference (ToR) will be sent to
this list by Thursday for list discussion.

2. A Doodle poll will be sent to this list to attempt to determine the
best meeting time possible for a weekly call; please respond to this
right away because we will try to have the first call as early as
possible next week.

3. A primary objective will be to finalize the ToR next week so that the
group may begin the real work promptly.


Action items:

        Glen - please send a list of the list subscribers to Cheryl,
Heather and I so that we can validate that key participants have been
added.

        Gisella - please initiate a Doodle poll on this list, avoiding
conflicting GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO meetings; provide time options on Monday,
Tuesday & Wednesday; please include the 20:30 UTC time on Mondays if
there are not conflicts.

        Cheryl - please ensure that the collaborative work space is
implemented and announced on this list.

Chuck



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 2:01 PM
> To: Avri Doria; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?
> 
> 
> I hope to have more details in terms of next steps either later this
> week or early next week.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx]
On
> > Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:10 PM
> > To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Good question.
> >
> > Have the collective  of the SOAC chairs actually made a decision
that
> > we should go ahead and talk?
> >
> > Have any GAC members joined the list?
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> > On 16 Aug 2010, at 11:41, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The GAC has made its statement. Some preliminary discussions
within
> > At-Large have suggested that the sky has indeed not fallen and that
> > this the GAC statement is more of an opening statement than a final
> > decision.
> > >
> > > The GAC statement calls for further discussion. Some will say that
> > this is just a call to argue the details to implement what some
> > (including myself) see as a draconian least-common-denominator
> approach
> > to TLD strings, premitting only that which is not offensive to
> anyone.
> > I disagree, and see this as at least an opportunity to engage and
> > produce something that protects free speech (as we had been told in
> F2F
> > meetings by many GAC delegates) as well as addresses fears expressed
> in
> > the statement.
> > >
> > > The only thing that nobody wants is the status quo, which is what
> > will remain if we ignore the opportunity.
> > >
> > > It appears to have been the consensus of the chairs of ALAC, GAC
> and
> > GNSO that this mailing list is the appropriate forum for such
> > engagement, yet I have seen nothing here since the immediate
reaction
> > to the GAC statement.
> > >
> > > What is anyone waiting for? If the GAC is serious about wanting
> > dialogue -- as it has indicated -- than it must be part of this
> > conversation. Indeed, there must *be* a conversation.
> > >
> > > - Evan
> > >
> >
>